Diana Johnson MP: speeches 2025

420 published records · newest first.

Speeches

5 Jun 2025 · Police Presence on High Streets · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Furniss. I start, of course, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for making such a passionate and eloquent speech on behalf of her constituents, and for what she said about her fight—indeed, her mission—to take back Erdington High Street. I think she said that she wanted to make her voice and her community’s voice heard; she has certainly done that this afternoon. It was clear that Erdington deserved better than it was getting and she has delivered that improvement, so she should be very proud of that. It has been a really wide-ranging debate with lots of local and national flavour. Many different areas and constituencies have been referred to, and I am grateful to all the Members who have spoken today. The fact that it has been such a comprehensive debate reflects the significance that is attached to these issues by us as parliamentarians and by our constituents. Before I respond to some of the specific points that were raised, I will be really clear about this Government’s position. We believe wholeheartedly and unreservedly in the value of a visible and responsive police presence in our communities. As we have heard, that is especially important on high streets and in town centres. It is very encouraging indeed to hear about initiatives that have made a real difference, such as Operation Fearless in Erdington, in Birmingham. As I have already said, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for her work. I also commend the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, the chief constable of West Midlands police, Craig Guildford, and the assistant chief constable, Jen Mattinson, for driving this initiative forward for the community. Across the country, however, far more needs to be done, and we need to build on the work of Operation Fearless and similar operations around the country. In recent years, too many neighbourhoods have been plagued by antisocial behaviour and crime, with shoplifting and street theft in particular surging. As those offences have shot up, we all know the reality—neighbourhood policing was eroded under previous Governments. Actually, let us be clear: it was slashed by previous Governments. The impact of that is very well documented. Across the country, the belief set in among local businesses and residents that police were not on the streets. Antisocial behaviour and shop theft were treated as low level, and if people called the police, nobody came and nothing was done. I think we all agree now that that is totally unacceptable and needs to be fixed. That is why this Government have made rebuilding neighbourhood policing a focus of our safer streets mission, which is central to the Prime Minister’s plan for change. Under the mission, we are aiming to halve violence against women and girls and knife crime in a decade, tackle shop theft, street crime and antisocial behaviour, and improve trust in the criminal justice system. All those aims are tied in some way to another of the mission’s core strands: rebuilding the neighbourhood policing model. Without a strong local police footprint, our communities are left exposed and people suffer. Put simply, neighbourhood policing is the beating heart of our law enforcement system. After years of neglect, this Government will restore it to full health. I also want to make a comment about police funding and resources, because a number of hon. Members have talked about that this afternoon. Clearly, the funding formula is the one we inherited. We have been in power for 11 months, but we have been clear that we will embark on police reform, and there is a White Paper coming in the next few months. I want to make clear to hon. Members this afternoon that, within that, there will undoubtedly have to be a discussion about finances and resources for policing. Let me turn to the points that have been raised. We have already made £200 million available to forces to kick-start year one of our programme, which will support the first step of delivering 13,000 additional officers into neighbourhood policing roles. Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I welcome PC Coyle to his new role in Durham. I also pay tribute to all our police officers, who work for us day in, day out, particularly the neighbourhood police officers I met this morning in Milton Keynes, who were doing a fantastic job for their community. Our approach to delivering on the 13,000 in 2025-26 has been designed to deliver an initial increase to the neighbourhood policing workforce in a manner that is flexible and can be adapted to the local context and the varied crime demands in certain neighbourhoods. Police forces have embraced that and want to make a positive start towards achieving the goal of 13,000 additional neighbourhood officers by the end of this Parliament. The neighbourhood policing guarantee was announced by the Prime Minister on 10 April. He said that, along with the Home Secretary, he had written to all chief constables and police and crime commissioners, setting out key objectives. The guarantee aims to reverse the decline in visible policing through clear commitments, designed with the support of policing, to be achieved throughout the course of this Parliament. By July, every neighbourhood throughout England and Wales will have named contactable officers. These officers will know their areas and build relationships with residents and businesses, and they will understand local concerns. In too many instances in the past, residents felt they had no one to go to. By July, there will be a guaranteed response time to local neighbourhood police queries from members of the public and businesses of 72 hours. Having committed to these steps, it is now down to Government and policing to deliver on them. We expect that by July, all police forces will be able to demonstrate that that commitment to the guarantee has been achieved. Additionally, the College of Policing will begin the national roll-out of its neighbourhood policing training programme during the neighbourhood policing week of action in June. The training will equip officers with essential skills, such as problem solving, relationship building and crime prevention, to effectively tackle local issues and enhance community engagement. This dedicated training aims to transform neighbourhood policing services, ensuring trusted and effective policing that cuts crime and keeps people safe. There is also the hotspot action programme, which focuses on particular hotspots and really putting in the resources—it sounds very similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington referred to. I want to make some comments about retail crime. It has been very helpful to hear from Members today who have experience of the retail sector. We know that in the last two years of the previous Government, shop theft soared by 70%. There is an epidemic in shop theft, and we need to do something about it. As has been said, in the Crime and Policing Bill we have brought forward a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in stores, after years of campaigning by USDAW and the Co-op, among others. Also included as part of the Bill is the removal of the legislation that makes shop theft of and below £200 a summary-only offence, which meant that it could only be tried in the magistrates court. This sends a clear message that any level of shop theft is illegal and will be taken seriously. I noted what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said about that, but there is a deterrent in this, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins). It is about saying that shop theft of any value is theft, and action will be taken. We still expect that the vast majority of cases will be heard in the magistrates court— [ Interruption. ] I do not have time for an intervention, but I am happy to discuss it with Members after the debate. There is also additional funding going into the National Police Chiefs’ Council to give further training to police and retailers on preventive tactics. We are putting £5 million into the specialist analyst team within Opal, which is the national policing intelligence unit dealing with the serious organised criminal gangs that are now getting involved in shop theft. There will also be £2 million over the next three years for the National Business Crime Centre, which provides a resource for both police and businesses to learn, share and support each other to prevent and combat crime. We also have the retail crime forum with representatives from major businesses, which I chair. We are determined that this summer, for the next three months starting at the end of this month, we will put increasing the safety of our town centres and high streets under the microscope, in partnership with PCCs, councils, schools, health services, businesses, transport and community organisations. I am aware that tackling criminality and antisocial behaviour in town centres is already a focus for many police forces, but we need to do more and go quicker. We have to take that action, and I look forward to the plans that PCCs have been drawing up and will be providing to the Home Office in the next few days. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for calling this debate, as it is an issue that every Member of this House cares passionately about.
2 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
The Home Secretary has been very clear about the priorities that police forces should actually focus on. As agreed with the Home Secretary, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing are conducting a review of non-crime hate incidents. We will update Parliament in due course on the findings of that review and any changes that may be required to the code of practice introduced by the shadow Home Secretary in March 2023.
2 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might write to me with the details of what he has outlined. If so, I will look at them.
2 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said; this is a problem up and down the land. At the moment, police forces are doing their best, but the Crime and Policing Bill will allow them to seize vehicles that are being used in an antisocial way, without having to give any warnings, and then to destroy them. That is the way forward, but I pay tribute to the work that is already ongoing with police forces.
2 Jun 2025 · Violence against Shop Workers: Rural Areas · Hansard source
More
Under the previous Government, shop theft was allowed to reach epidemic proportions. There was a 70% increase in the last two years of the previous Government. We are working hard to tackle this epidemic in every area of our country, including rural areas. Through our Crime and Policing Bill, we are introducing a new stand-alone offence of assault against a retail worker. We will not tolerate workers facing abuse and violence simply for doing their job, whether that is in towns or in rural areas.
2 Jun 2025 · Violence against Shop Workers: Rural Areas · Hansard source
More
May I express my concern about the attack on my hon. Friend’s constituent? It is totally unacceptable. Under the retail crime action plan, the police made operational commitments to prioritising attendance where violence had been used. Some progress has been made, but much more needs to be done. I will ensure that every police force understands how seriously the Government take this offence. The additional 35 police officers and 21 police community support officers who will be in place as a result of our neighbourhood policing guarantee might go some way to helping with that.
2 Jun 2025 · Violence against Shop Workers: Rural Areas · Hansard source
More
A case has been made over several years for why retail workers should be covered by this specific offence. Work was done with the Co-op, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and many others to get the evidence together. If there is evidence from the financial sector and from banks, I want to see it, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to talk to the people with whom he was having conversations about this. I am very open to looking at this, but at the moment, we have drawn up the offence on the basis of the evidence available to us.
13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out the case for the new clause on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. As he explained, it concerns the important issue of mopeds being used for commercial purposes by riders with provisional licences. I assure the Committee that any kind of antisocial behaviour is unacceptable, and that is why the Government are undertaking an ambitious programme of work to tackle it. The antisocial use of vehicles such as e-scooters and off-road bikes causes havoc in local communities, as we all know from our constituency postbags. We are making it easier for the police to seize such vehicles from offenders and dispose of them. Clause 8, which we have already debated, strengthens the law so that vehicles being used to commit antisocial behaviour can be seized immediately by police without the need first to provide a warning. Furthermore, the Department for Transport, together with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, is considering plans to review existing requirements for motorcycle training, testing and licensing, taking account of recent proposals by the motorcycle industry. As we have heard, it is currently legal for moped riders with provisional licences to work as delivery drivers. The new clause would therefore create an ambiguity in the law, which could result in confusion for the moped riders, as well as for employers and the police, because it is legal to drive on a provisional licence for these purposes but they could have their moped seized. There is also no clear definition of “commercial activities”. That could extend to a range of scenarios and cover people such as food and grocery delivery riders, couriers, parking enforcement officers, medical laboratory technicians, blood bank workers and so on. The new clause could therefore result in such sectors operating with diminished capability. The new clause may also have the unintended consequence of an increase in the use of modified electrically assisted pedal cycles that do not comply with current EAPC regulations for use on public roads, or the illegal use of off-road bikes on public roads for the same commercial purposes. The shadow Minister asked what more we could do on this issue. I highlight the work of Transport for London, which launched a road safety charter for meal and grocery delivery companies in September 2023 to identify ways to reduce death and serious injury among riders and raise road safety standards. The charter was developed in collaboration with the then five largest meal and grocery delivery companies and consists of 10 road safety principles that aim to keep food delivery motorcycle couriers and other road users safe. TfL is evaluating the impact of the charter’s implementation over the past 18 months and will share its findings with the Government in due course. On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw new clause 46.
13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
New clause 95 seeks to add three penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of littering from a vehicle. While I am sure we all want to see robust consequences for those who throw litter on to our streets, we do need to consider carefully how workable the proposal of the shadow Minister is. Currently, the number of prosecutions for littering when litter was dropped from a vehicle is low due to the requirement for the individual to be identified, which can prove difficult. The opportunity therefore for the courts to impose such a punishment would be limited. The new clause also appears to assume that the person throwing the litter out of the vehicle would be the driver, which is not necessarily the case, and there will be instances when the offender does not have a driving licence to endorse in the first place. Is the shadow Minister suggesting that in such cases the driver—it could be a bus driver or a coach driver—should nevertheless be held liable? However, I agree that this is a serious issue, so I will ask my counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with responsibility for policy on littering to consider the benefits of designing a workable system to enable the endorsement of penalty points for littering offences committed from vehicles. Local authorities can already issue civil penalties of up to £500 to the keeper of a vehicle from which litter has been thrown, and that amount doubles if not paid within 28 days. That civil penalty was introduced following consideration of the difficulty of identifying the individual who threw the litter. That measure can help when video evidence shows only the vehicle from which the litter has been thrown. The civil penalty also provides a more immediate means of redress and prevents pressures on the court system. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for raising the issue. As I said, I will talk to my counterpart at DEFRA. However, for the reasons I outlined, I ask him not to press the new clause.
13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
It is customary at this stage of our proceedings to say a few words to mark the end of our deliberations in Committee. It certainly feels a very long time ago that we started this process. I have been reflecting on the tumultuous events that have happened while this Committee has been sitting. We have had the death of the Pope and the election of a new Pope. We have had the saving of the British Steel industry and some rather interesting local elections as well. Against that backdrop, although we have had some disagreements, particularly over some of the new clauses, I welcome the fact that the measures in the Bill command a substantial degree of cross-party support. I have also learned a few new things. I had no idea what potting was until my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd raised it in the Committee. I am pleased that the Bill’s provisions and the nearly 100 new clauses have had the benefit of rigorous scrutiny by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee over the eight days we sat. I thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, and your co-Chairs, Sir Roger, Ms Lewell and Mr Pritchard, for keeping us in very good order. I thank my fellow Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Yardley and for Pontypridd, for womanfully sharing the considerable workload in Committee with me, and I thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby, for keeping us in good order. I thank the Opposition Front Bench, including the hon. Member for Stockton West, who I think must be setting some new parliamentary record for the number of Bills back-to-back on which he has led for the Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, who reminded us that the proceedings on a Public Bill Committee are a marathon and not a sprint—one of her contributions was certainly a marathon in terms of the speaking notes she had provided for her. I thank the Clerks, Hansard Reporters and Doorkeepers. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have served so diligently on the Committee from both sides, and made such thoughtful and valuable contributions. The Bill teams, other officials and lawyers from the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have all provided excellent support to the Committee. The Bill is, I believe, much enhanced as a result of our deliberations. The new measures we added will help us all the more with the delivery of our safer streets mission. I just realised that, of course, I have not paid tribute to the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee, and want to do so—I do not want them to feel missed out. I thank them for their contributions. I look forward to further debate on Report, which I am sure will come soon. On that basis, thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
New clause 97 seeks to block public funding of groups or organisations that promote criminal conduct or seek to subvert the democratic functions or constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. I understand from the shadow Minister’s remarks that this stems from comments made by a group that has previously received funding through the music export growth scheme; the Committee may find it helpful to be reminded that that decision was taken under the previous Government, and it is this Government who have had to deal with the consequences. While I utterly condemn the remarks made by the group, I stress to the Committee that it is the subject of an ongoing police investigation and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment any further. However, I want to make it clear that the Government do not believe that individuals expressing the views that we have heard should be receiving taxpayer funding. I know that the Prime Minister has asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to review urgently the music export growth scheme in the light of the comments that have emerged. It would be right to wait for that review to conclude before considering what further action may need to be taken. Therefore, I ask that the shadow Minister withdraw new clause 97. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
As the shadow Minister explained, the new clause seeks to remove the word “insulting” from section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which deals with intentional harassment, alarm or distress. That would raise the threshold for criminal liability by ensuring that the law only captures behaviour and displays that are threatening or abusive, not “insulting”. I fully understand the motivation behind the new clause, and am sympathetic to the need to strengthen protections for free speech and reduce the risk of criminalising conduct based on personal sensitivities. However, there are legitimate concerns that removing “insulting” could narrow the tools available to respond to deliberate and targeted harassment. Given the potential implications of this issue, we believe it warrants further consideration. I will reflect on what the shadow Minister has said and therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause at this time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Dr Allin-Khan. I want to clarify remarks that I made during the previous Committee sitting, in response to a point raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, about officer numbers in the Metropolitan police. I stated that the Government anticipated that, under the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime budget for 2025-26, there will be a reduction of around 1,000 police officers and police community support officers in the Metropolitan police. There has been some confusion about the anticipated reduction in police officers, PCSOs and staff at the Met, which has been very unhelpful in getting a clear picture. The final MOPAC budget report states that the Met police is expecting a reduction of 1,419 full-time equivalent officers, PCSOs and staff—it includes staff—as opposed to the 1,700 figure that was previously reported. As I said in my remarks at the end of last week, I am obviously concerned about reductions, and the Government have done everything they can to minimise the number of officers, staff and PCSOs who will lose their roles. I hope that clarification is helpful to the Committee.
13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the shadow Minister for explaining new clause 99. I note the work of the hon. Member for North Cotswolds and, in fact, I am due to meet him soon to discuss the subject of firearms. The new clause would require every PEEL inspection to include an inspection of the efficiency and effectiveness of a police force’s firearms licensing department. I hope that I can persuade the shadow Minister that this change is unnecessary and, indeed, would be damaging, as it would curtail the independence of HMICFRS and its freedom to shine a light on the most pertinent issues facing policing. It is vital that HMICFRS is independent from policing and from the Government. As part of that, it must have the freedom to set its own inspection programmes and frameworks when deciding how to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales. That allows it to inspect police forces on the most pertinent and high-profile issues facing policing and to assess the basics of forces’ operational and organisational activity. In no other area of policing does the law set out what the inspectorate must include in its regular inspections. The change proposed by the new clause would set a most unhelpful precedent. HMICFRS conducts detailed sector consultations ahead of each PEEL cycle to determine what will be covered in its assessment framework and how forces will be graded. It regularly updates its frameworks as necessary to include or remove areas for assessment where it identifies priority issues. HMICFRS also consults publicly on its inspection programme and frameworks before they are laid in Parliament. It consulted publicly on its latest programme, covering 2025 to 2029, late last year. The final programme was published in March 2025, following the approval of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary already has appropriate powers to commission the inspectorate to conduct additional inspections into high-profile and concerning issues, should the need arise. We saw that with the disorder in summer last year. If there are concerns about a force’s performance in respect of firearms licensing, the local policing body may also commission the inspectorate to assess its efficiency and effectiveness. In line with our manifesto commitment, we will further empower HMICFRS to intervene in failing forces to ensure that the most high-risk recommendations it makes are properly acted upon by police forces. As part of its recently approved programme, HMICFRS plans to commence a thematic inspection of firearms licensing later this year. It will use that inspection to highlight good practice and make recommendations for improvement to all police forces. The Government will carefully consider the outcome of the inspection and any recommendations made to us following it. Firearms licensing by police forces is fundamental to keeping the public safe. We keep firearms licensing under review, and in February we published the Government response to the 2023 firearms licensing consultation, which contained a number of important commitments focused on continuing to improve firearms licensing controls. We will shortly be issuing to chief officers of police refreshed statutory guidance on firearms licensing, which will contain stronger guidance for police licensing departments around domestic abuse, evidence of violence and the requirements for referees for firearms applications. There is also now in place a national programme of training on firearms licensing for forces across England and Wales, run by the College of Policing. That will drive up standards and deliver a more consistent approach and good practice across police forces. The training is considered to be mandatory for forces and we are amending the statutory guidance to make that clear. In addition, the performance of firearms licensing departments in forces is being monitored by the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for firearms licensing, Deputy Chief Constable David Gardner. He has developed a table setting out performance data for firearms licensing departments in police forces, which was published in April this year and will be updated every quarter. It includes the percentage of applications received and decided in four months by forces. The table provides greater transparency on performance, including the time taken by licensing teams when dealing with firearms licensing applications. For all the reasons I have set out, I think the new clause is unnecessary, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.
13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
New clause 59 seeks to abolish non-crime hate incidents and to make the processing of personal data in relation to such incidents unlawful. It also seeks to introduce a new type of incident, known as a non-crime perception record, to ensure that data that may assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct can still be collected. It may be helpful for the Committee to know that, in 2023, the previous Government introduced the statutory non-crime hate incidents code of practice on the recording and retention of personal data for police forces in England and Wales, and that the College of Policing updated its operational guidance on hate crime for the police in 2023 to ensure it aligned with the code. The College of Policing also publishes operational guidance, known as authorised professional practice, for numerous crime types and police business areas. Members should be in no doubt that this Government’s top priority for policing is delivering on our safer streets mission, including through essential reforms to rebuild neighbourhood policing, restore public confidence and deliver our commitment to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls, as well as reducing antisocial behaviour. Against that backdrop, the Home Secretary has been clear that a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken to non-crime hate incidents. Accordingly, she has already agreed that the National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the College of Policing, will conduct a review on the recording’s use and effectiveness. The review will cover when the police should record information that does not reach the criminal threshold but where it is still deemed necessary to monitor community tensions and keep the public safe. It will also consider the fundamental right of freedom of expression and recent court rulings in this area. The Government will work closely with the NPCC and the College of Policing as we develop our findings and any proposals. I hope the hon. Member for Stockton West agrees that it would be premature to make decisions on the future of non-crime hate incidents before the review concludes later this year. I therefore invite him to withdraw his new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to the hon. Member for setting out the rationale for his new clause, and I will refer to a number of related issues. New clause 58 would give the Home Secretary the power to amend or withdraw any code of practice, or related guidance documents, from the College of Policing and/or the National Police Chiefs’ Council. As the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament and the public for policing, it is important that she works with policing bodies to ensure consistent standards and practice across England and Wales. The issuing of guidance is just one part of achieving that aim. The hon. Member referred to the ability of Ministers to take action. It is worth noting that there are existing provisions for the Home Secretary to approve the issuing and revision of codes of practice published by the College of Policing. Such guidance is rightly categorised as statutory and covers a wide range of issues—from armed policing through to the requirement for ethical policing—that are relevant to ensuring that the public are safe and that communities have confidence that officers are held to the highest standards. Although the new clause would go further and provide the Home Secretary with powers to amend any guidance issued by the College of Policing and the NPCC, we should not forget—in fact, the shadow Minister referred to this—that policing is operationally independent of Government. That is a vital principle in our democratic society, and it is fundamental to our model of policing by consent. Having said that, I note that the Home Secretary and I have very productive relationships with police leaders. We work hand in hand with police leaders to develop policy and guidance with the ultimate shared aim of keeping the public safe. I remind the Committee that the Government will publish a White Paper on police reform later this year. The Home Secretary has signalled her intention to work more closely with police leaders to drive improvements and to ensure that policing is set up to succeed. We will set out our plans for strengthening how the policing system works to tackle a range of issues, from the future workforce to tackling fast-changing crime. I encourage all hon. Members to engage with that work when the consultation on the White Paper opens. As the hon. Member for Stockton West said, the new clause was inspired by recent issues such as the update to the police race action plan. The plan was jointly developed by the NPCC and the College of Policing, and it commits to zero tolerance of racism in policing, on which I am sure we all agree. It is worth reflecting that the plan was originally published under the previous Conservative Government. I support the plan’s aims, and I completely reject the notion that it encourages preferential treatment for some groups over others. Of course, police officers should be conscious of the history of race relations in their local area—for example, by working with community leaders and key stakeholders from different communities on issues such as stop and search. Having said that, the police are required to apply the law equally, regardless of ethnicity. I think this new clause is misguided. In any event, given the levers available to the Home Secretary in relation to statutory police guidance, and given the wider work on police reform, the new clause is unnecessary. For those reasons, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw it. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I am grateful for the short speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh just made. He has spoken to me about the events in Westcliff-on-Sea and their impact on that community. I was also grateful to the shadow Minister for referencing that incident, because it sets out clearly why the provision in new clause 88 is necessary. I welcome that. The shadow Minister asked whether we will stop legitimate protests, and somehow put the right to religious worship above the right to protest. I want to make it clear that the new clause does not place the freedom of religion above the right to protest. I think we all agree that the right to protest is an important part of our democracy. The new clause seeks to balance those rights by ensuring that protesters do not unduly intimidate or prevent individuals from accessing places of worship. Although the right to protest remains key and fundamental, the provisions in the new clause clarify police powers to manage those protests near places of worship, ensuring that the freedom of religion is protected without imposing a blanket restriction on demonstrations. The intent is not to curtail protest rights, but to prevent situations where protests create a hostile environment that discourages religious observance. It is important to note that it applies equally to all faiths and all places of worship, not just, as we started off talking about, a specific religious group. The shadow Minister raised the resource implications for BTP and MDP. The request to bring forward the provisions was because of the operational needs of those police forces. I am expect that they will be able to deal with any costs arising from new clause 90 from their existing budget. The shadow Minister also mentioned training and making sure that police officers understood the introduction of these provisions. I am sure he agrees that there is extensive training of police officers. With public order in particular, we know that there is a very well-worn path of how officers are trained at the right level, depending on the situation. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Metropolitan police officers, who do a lot of public order work, down at Gravesend to see that training first hand, and I saw the amount of resource that goes in to ensuring that those officers are equipped and know their rights and how most effectively to use them. The new provisions will be part of the continuation of that training for police officers, alongside the work of the College of Policing. On that basis, I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. New clause 88 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 89 Powers of senior officers to impose conditions on protests “(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows. (2) In section 12 (imposing conditions on public processions)— (a) in subsection (1), for ‘the’, in the first place it occurs, substitute ‘a’; (b) in subsection (2)— (i) in the words before paragraph (a) omit ‘the’; (ii) in paragraph (a) for the words from ‘, the most’ to the end substitute ‘— (i) the most senior in rank of the police officers present at the scene, or (ii) in the case of a procession in England and Wales, a police officer authorised by a chief officer of police for the purposes of this subsection, and’. (3) In section 14 (imposing conditions on public assemblies)— (a) in subsection (1), for ‘the’, in the first place it occurs, substitute ‘a’; (b) in subsection (2)— (i) in the words before paragraph (a) omit ‘the’; (ii) in paragraph (a) for the words from ‘, the most” to the end substitute ‘— (i) the most senior in rank of the police officers present at the scene, or (ii) in the case of an assembly in England and Wales, a police officer authorised by a chief officer of police for the purposes of this subsection, and’; (c) in subsection (2ZB), for ‘reference in subsection (2)(b) to a chief officer of police includes’, substitute ‘references in subsection (2) to a chief officer of police include’.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause allows the powers in sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to impose conditions on public processions and public assemblies to be exercised by a police officer authorised to do so by a chief officer of police. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 90 Amendments relating to British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police “(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3). (2) In section 14A(9) (prohibiting trespassory assemblies), in the definition of ‘land’, after ‘“land”’ insert ‘, except in subsections (4A) to (4C) of this section,’. (3) In section 16 (interpretation), in the definition of ‘public assembly’, for the words from ‘wholly’ to the end substitute ‘— (a) wholly or partly open to the air, or (b) within any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 31(1) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003;’. (4) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6). (5) In section 60 (powers to stop and search in anticipation of or after violence), after subsection (9A) insert— ‘(9B) So far as they relate to an authorisation by a member of the Ministry of Defence Police— (a) subsections (1) and (9) have effect as if the references to a locality in a police area were references to a place in England and Wales among those specified in section 2(2) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, and (b) subsection (1)(aa)(i) has effect as if the reference to a police area were a reference to the places in England and Wales specified in section 2(2) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.’ (6) In section 60AA (powers to require removal of disguises)— (a) for subsection (8) substitute— ‘(8) So far as subsections (1), (3) and (6) relate to an authorisation by a member of the British Transport Police Force, those subsections have effect as if the references to a locality or a locality in a a police area were references to a place in England and Wales among those specified in section 31(1)(a) to (f) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. (8A) So far as subsections (1), (3) and (6) relate to an authorisation by a member of the Ministry of Defence Police, those subsections have effect as if the references to a locality or a locality in a police area were references to a place in England and Wales among those specified in section 2(2) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.’; (b) in subsection (9) omit ‘and “policed premises” each’.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause extends certain powers under Part 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 to land which is not open to the air; allows Ministry of Defence Police to issue authorisations under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; and allows British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police to issue authorisations under section 60AA of that Act. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 91 Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences “(1) This section applies where in criminal proceedings in a court in England and Wales, or in proceedings (anywhere) before a service court, a person (‘D’) is charged with a qualifying offence. (2) An offence is a ‘qualifying offence’ if— (a) it is alleged to have been committed by D acting in the exercise of functions as an authorised firearms officer, (b) the conduct alleged to constitute the offence involved the use by D of a lethal barrelled weapon to discharge a conventional round, and (c) D was, at the time of the alleged offence, authorised by the relevant authority to use that weapon with that round. (3) The court must— (a) cause the following information to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court, in each case unless satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so— (i) D’s name; (ii) D’s address; (iii) D’s date of birth; (b) give a reporting direction (see section (Authorised firearms officers: reporting directions)) in respect of D (if one does not already have effect), unless satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. (4) The court may, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so, make an anonymity order (see section (Authorised firearms officers: anonymity orders)) in respect of D. (5) If D is convicted of the offence— (a) subsections (3) and (4) cease to apply in respect of D, and (b) any restriction put in place under subsection (3)(a) and any reporting direction given, or anonymity order made, under this section in respect of D cease to have effect at the time D is sentenced for the offence. (6) In subsection (1), ‘authorised firearms officer’ means— (a) a member of a relevant police force who is authorised by the relevant chief officer to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a constable, (b) a National Crime Agency officer who is authorised by the Director General of the National Crime Agency to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a National Crime Agency officer, (c) a member of the Police Service of Scotland or the Police Service of Northern Ireland who— (i) is provided under section 98 of the Police Act 1996 for the assistance of a police force in England and Wales, and (ii) is authorised by the relevant authority to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a constable, or (d) a member of the armed forces who— (i) is deployed in support of a relevant police force or the National Crime Agency, and (ii) is authorised by the Secretary of State to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round for the purposes of that deployment. (7) In this section— ‘conventional round’ means any shot, bullet or other missile other than one designed to be used without its use giving rise to a substantial risk of causing death or serious injury; ‘lethal barrelled weapon’ has the meaning given by section 57(1B) of the Firearms Act 1968; ‘member of the armed forces’ means a person who is subject to service law (see section 367 of the Armed Forces Act 2006); ‘relevant authority’ means— (a) in relation to a member of a relevant police force, the relevant chief officer; (b) in relation to a National Crime Agency officer, the Director General of the National Crime Agency; (c) in relation to a member of the Police Service of Scotland, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland; (d) in relation to a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; (e) in relation to a member of the armed forces, the Secretary of State; ‘relevant chief officer’ means— (a) in relation to a police force in England and Wales, the chief officer of police of that police force; (b) in relation to the British Transport Police Force, the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force; (c) in relation to the Ministry of Defence Police, the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police; (d) in relation to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Chief Constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary; ‘relevant police force’ means— (a) a police force in England and Wales, (b) the British Transport Police Force, (c) the Ministry of Defence Police, or (d) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary; ‘service court’ means— (a) the Court Martial, or (b) the Court Martial Appeal Court. (8) This section does not apply in relation to proceedings begun before the coming into force of this section.” . — (Alex Davies-Jones.) This new clause provides for a presumption of anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with (but not convicted of) an offence relating to the discharge of their firearm in the course of their duties Brought up, and read the First time.
8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
These new clauses on bulk and suspicious sales come directly from the police—from Commander Clayman’s report and his concern about the grey market. The police clearly believe that these new measures are necessary for them to use this intelligence to tackle our problems with knife crime. Obviously, that fits with the Government’s manifesto commitment to halve knife crime over the next 10 years. That information and intelligence will be sent to a central unit in the first instance. We will provide guidance to the police on the use of that information. We expect that the information that is not connected to other relevant intelligence linking it to criminality will be deleted and not subject to further investigation. I turn now to the sanctions on online executives. Government new clauses 72 to 86 and new schedule 1 introduce civil penalties for online companies and their senior managers should they fail to take down illegal knife and offensive weapons content when notified of it by the police. Knives and weapons that are illegally marketed to encourage violence or to promote their suitability for use in violent attacks are commonly sold online and then used in senseless attacks. We know that the boys who murdered Ronan Kanda did so using weapons that had been illegally sold online. Many of those types of knives are marketed on social media and other platforms, meaning that those companies indirectly profit from their sale. Commander Clayman’s review set out the extent of the problem related to the online sale of knives and offensive weapons, particularly where it relates to knives illegally being made available to young people. That report recommended that social media platforms be required to remove such prohibited material within 48 hours of police notification. These new clauses deliver on that recommendation. The Home Office consulted widely on these measures. We engaged directly with tech companies and also held a public consultation. Tech companies and associations, charities, councils and members of the public responded to the consultation, and our response to that was published recently. Collectively, the new clauses will grant the police the power to issue content removal notices to online marketplaces, social media platforms and search engines. The notices will require them to take down specified illegal content relating to knives or offensive weapons. If the specified content is not taken down within 48 hours, the company and an executive designated as their content manager would be liable to civil penalty notices of up to £60,000 and £10,000 respectively. Additionally, should a company fail to designate an appropriate UK-based executive when required to do so by the police, it would be liable for a civil penalty notice of up to £60,000. These measures provide important safeguards. Both online companies and their designated executives will have the opportunity to request that the content removal notice be reviewed. The police must comply with such requests. Should online companies not have an executive who meets the criteria to be designated as their content manager, they will have the opportunity to inform the police as such. Prior to the issuing of a civil penalty notice, the company and the content manager will have the opportunity to make representations to the police. Finally, penalty notices may of course be challenged in the courts. I fully expect online companies to act responsibly and take down harmful illegal content when made aware of it. The measures will be used in the rare cases where reckless companies choose to continue hosting such content. Taken together, this is a comprehensive package of measures that will further help to restrict the supply of weapons, particularly to children, and to keep our communities safe. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I wanted to make it clear that the documents that are being talked about in relation to proving identity are passports and driving licences. I take the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised with me in his intervention, but those are the two documents that will be looked at and provided. We will want to make sure that this works, and in the future, other documents may well need to be added to that list. However, just to be clear, it is those two documents. As I have also said, we would expect that a person who is delivering would look at those documents. I do not really want to get into how those documents can be forged, because that is obviously an issue that is on the hon. Gentleman’s mind, but at the moment those are the two documents, and we would expect them to be examined by a delivery driver or courier when the items are delivered.
8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is clear. As we have said, photographic identity has to be provided at the beginning of the process—at the point of sale—as well as the identity document, to ensure it matches up. With that, I commend these measures to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. New clause 66 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 67 Delivery of knives etc “(1) The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 is amended as follows. (2) After section 39 insert— ‘39A Defences to offence under section 38: England and Wales (1) It is a defence for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38(2) of delivering a bladed product to residential premises to show that the delivery conditions were met. (2) It is a defence for a person (“the seller”) charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38(2) of arranging for the delivery of a bladed product to residential premises to show that— (a) the arrangement required the person with whom it was made not to finally deliver the bladed product unless the delivery conditions were met, and (b) the seller took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the product would not be finally delivered unless the delivery conditions were met. (3) It is a defence for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38(3) to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of the offence. (4) The delivery conditions are that— (a) the person (“P”) into whose hands the bladed product was finally delivered showed the person delivering it an identity document issued to P, and (b) on the basis of that document a reasonable person would have been satisfied— (i) that P was over 18, and (ii) if the buyer was an individual, that P was the buyer. (5) In subsection (4) “identity document” means— (a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971); (b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation; (c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)); (d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. (6) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if— (a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and (b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (7) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38.’ (3) After section 40 insert— ‘40A Delivery of bladed products sold by UK seller to residential premises: England and Wales (1) This section applies if— (a) a person (“the seller”) sells a bladed product to another person (“the buyer”), (b) the seller and the buyer are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale and the seller is within the United Kingdom at that time, (c) before the sale the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the courier”) by which the courier agreed to deliver bladed products for the seller, (d) the courier was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of bladed products, and (e) pursuant to the arrangement, the courier finally delivers the bladed product to residential premises in England or Wales. (2) The courier commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the bladed product to residential premises in England and Wales, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who— (a) is aged 18 or over, and (b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer. (3) A person finally delivering the bladed product to residential premises in England and Wales on behalf of the courier commits an offence if, when they deliver it, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who— (a) is aged 18 or over, and (b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer. (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 39A(4)) were met. (5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that— (a) the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 39A(4)) were met, or (b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a bladed product. (6) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if— (a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and (b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine. (8) Section 39(2) to (5) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) and (e) as it applies for the purposes of section 39(1)(b) and (e). (9) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under this section.’ (4) After section 42 insert— ‘42A Delivery of bladed articles sold by non-UK seller to premises: England and Wales (1) This section applies if— (a) a person (“the seller”) sells a bladed article to another person (“the buyer”), (b) the seller and the buyer are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale and the seller is outside the United Kingdom at that time, (c) before the sale the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the courier”) by which the courier agreed to deliver bladed articles for the seller, (d) the courier was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of bladed articles, and (e) pursuant to the arrangement, the courier finally delivers the bladed article to premises in England or Wales. (2) The courier commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the bladed article, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who— (a) is aged 18 or over, and (b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer. (3) A person finally delivering the bladed article on behalf of the courier commits an offence if, when they deliver the bladed article, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who— (a) is aged 18 or over, and (b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer. (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to show that the delivery conditions were met. (5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that— (a) the delivery conditions were met, or (b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a bladed article. (6) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if— (a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and (b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine. (8) Section 42(2) and (3) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) as it applies for the purposes of section 42(1)(b). (9) In this section— “bladed article” means an article to which section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies (as that section has effect in relation to England and Wales); “delivery conditions” has the meaning given by section 39A(4), but reading the reference in that section to a bladed product as a reference to a bladed article.’ (5) In section 38(10) (offences) for “section” substitute “sections 39A and”. (6) In section 39 (delivery of bladed products to persons under 18)— (a) in the heading, at the end insert “: Scotland and Northern Ireland”; (b) in subsection (1)(e) after “premises” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”; (c) in subsection (7) omit paragraph (a). (7) In section 40 (defences to delivery offences under sections 38 and 39)— (a) in the heading, after “39” insert “: Scotland and Northern Ireland”; (b) in subsection (1) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”; (c) in subsection (2) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”; (d) in subsection (3) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”; (e) in subsection (4) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”; (f) in subsection (5) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”; (g) in subsection (6) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”; (h) in subsection (7), omit “England and Wales or”; (i) in subsection (14), in the definition of “appropriate national authority” omit paragraph (a). (8) In section 41 (meaning of “bladed product” in sections 38 to 40)— (a) in the heading, for “40” substitute “40A”; (b) in subsection (1) for “40” substitute “40A”; (c) in subsection (2) for “40” substitute “40A”. (9) In section 42 (delivery of knives etc pursuant to arrangement with seller outside UK)— (a) in the heading, at the end insert “: Scotland and Northern Ireland”; (b) in subsection (1)(e), after “article” insert “to premises in Scotland or Northern Ireland”; (c) in subsection (5) omit “England and Wales or”; (d) omit subsection (10)(a); (e) omit subsection (11)(a). (10) In section 66(1)(j) (guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc) for “42” substitute “42A”. (11) In section 68 (regulations and orders)— (a) in subsection (2) after “State” insert, “, except for regulations under section 39A(5)(d),”; (b) after subsection (2) insert— “(2A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 39A(5)(d) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”’”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause makes changes to the offences and defences relating to delivery of knives to premises in England and Wales following a remote sale. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 68 Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales “(1) In the Criminal Justice Act 1988, after section 141C insert— ‘141D Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales (1) A person (“the seller”) must, in accordance with requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, report to the person specified in the regulations any reportable sales the seller makes of bladed articles. (2) A reportable sale of bladed articles occurs where the seller, in any of the ways set out in subsection (4), sells— (a) six or more bladed articles, none of which form a qualifying set of bladed articles; (b) two or more qualifying sets of bladed articles; (c) one or more qualifying sets of bladed articles and five or more bladed articles that do not form a qualifying set. (3) “Qualifying set of bladed articles” means three or more bladed articles packaged together for sale as a single item, where each bladed article is a different size or shape from the others. (4) The ways are— (a) in a single remote sale where the bladed articles are to be delivered to an address in England and Wales, or (b) in two or more remote sales in any period of 30 days— (i) to one person, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to one or more addresses in England and Wales, or (ii) to two or more persons, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to the same residential premises in England and Wales. (5) A sale of bladed articles is “remote” if the seller and the person to whom the bladed article is sold are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale. (6) For the purposes of subsection (5) a person (“A”) is not in the presence of another person (“B”) at any time if— (a) where A is an individual, A or a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time; (b) where A is not an individual, a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time. (7) A sale is not reportable if the person to whom the articles are sold (“the buyer”)— (a) informs the seller that the buyer is carrying on a business, and (b) is— (i) registered for value added tax under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, or (ii) registered as a company under the Companies Act 2006. (8) A person who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence. (9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (8) to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence. (10) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if— (a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and (b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (11) A person who commits an offence under subsection (8) is liable on summary conviction to a fine. (12) In this section— “bladed article” means an article to which section 141A applies (as that section has effect in relation to England and Wales), other than a knife which does not have a sharp point and is designed for eating food; “residential premises” means premises used for residential purposes (whether or not also used for other purposes). (13) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) may in particular include requirements about— (a) how reports are to be made, (b) when reports to be made, and (c) the information reports must include. (14) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (15) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend— (a) the number of bladed articles specified in subsection (2)(a); (b) the number of qualifying sets specified in subsection (2)(b); (c) the number of qualifying sets specified in subsection (2)(c); (d) the number of bladed articles specified in subsection (2)(c); (e) the period specified in subsection (4)(b). (16) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (15) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’ (2) In the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, in section 66(1) (guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc) after paragraph (g) insert— ‘(ga) section 141D of that Act (duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales),’”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause imposes a requirement on sellers of bladed articles to report bulk sales to a person specified in regulations. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 69 Remote sale and letting of crossbows “(1) The Crossbows Act 1987 is amended as follows. (2) In section 1 omit ‘unless he believes him to be eighteen years or older and has reasonable grounds for the belief’. (3) After section 1A insert— ‘1B Defences to offence under section 1: England and Wales (1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1 to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. (2) Subsection (3) applies if— (a) a person (“A”) is charged with an offence under section 1, and (b) A was not in the presence of the person (“B”) to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire at the time of the sale or letting on hire. (3) A is not to be regarded as having shown that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence unless, as a minimum, A shows that the following conditions are met. (4) Condition 1 is that, before the sale or letting on hire— (a) A obtained from B— (i) a copy of an identity document issued to B, and (ii) a photograph of B, and (b) on the basis of the things obtained under paragraph (a), a reasonable person would have been satisfied that B was aged 18 or over. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an “identity document” means— (a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971); (b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation; (c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)); (d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. (6) Condition 2 is that when the package containing the crossbow or part of the crossbow was dispatched by A, it was clearly marked to indicate— (a) that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow, and (b) that, when finally delivered, it should only be delivered into the hands of B. (7) Condition 3 is that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, the package would be delivered into the hands of B. (8) Condition 4 is that A did not deliver the package, or arrange for its delivery, to a locker. (9) Where the crossbow or part of a crossbow was dispatched by A to a place from which it was to be collected by B, references in subsections (6) and (7) to its final delivery are to be read as its supply to B from that place. (10) In subsection (8) “locker” means a lockable container to which the package is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on behalf of B, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B.’”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause makes changes to the defences available to a person who sells crossbows etc to under 18s, in contravention of section 1 of the Crossbows Act 1987, where the sale is made remotely (e.g. online). Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 70 Delivery of crossbows “In the Crossbows Act 1987, after section 1B (inserted by section (Remote sale and letting of crossbows)) insert— ‘1C Offence of seller delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to residential premises in England or Wales (1) This section applies if— (a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”), and (b) A and B are not in each other's presence at the time of the sale. (2) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A— (a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales, or (b) arranges for its delivery to residential premises in England or Wales. (3) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A— (a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a locker in England or Wales, or (b) arranges for its delivery to a locker in England or Wales. (4) In subsection (3) “locker” means a lockable container to which the crossbow or part of a crossbow is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on behalf of B, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B. (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both). (6) The “maximum term for summary offences”, in relation to an offence, means— (a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months; (b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks. 1D Defences to offences under section 1C (1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1C(2)(a) to show that the delivery conditions were met. (2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1C(2)(b) to show that— (a) the arrangement required the person with whom it was made not to finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow unless the delivery conditions were met, and (b) the person charged with the offence took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the crossbow or part of a crossbow would not be finally delivered unless the delivery conditions were met. (3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1C(3) to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. (4) For the purposes of this section the delivery conditions are that— (a) the person (“P”) into whose hands the crossbow or part of a crossbow was finally delivered showed the person delivering it an identity document issued to P, and (b) on the basis of that document a reasonable person would have been satisfied— (i) that P was over 18, and (ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire was an individual, that P was that individual. (5) “Identity document” has the same meaning as in section 1B(5). (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under section 1C. 1E Offence of delivery business delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to residential premises in England and Wales on behalf of UK seller (1) This section applies if— (a) a person (“A”) sells or lets for hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”), (b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is within the United Kingdom at that time, (c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A, (d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows, and (e) pursuant to the arrangement, C finally delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person other than an individual is within the United Kingdom at any time if the person carries on a business of selling articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time. (3) C commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who— (a) is aged 18 or over, and (b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual. (4) A person finally delivering the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales on behalf of C commits an offence if, when they deliver it, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who— (a) is aged 18 or over, and (b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual. (5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met. (6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) to show that— (a) the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met, or (b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a crossbow or part of a crossbow. (7) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under this section. (8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine. 1F Offence of delivery business delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to premises in England and Wales on behalf of non-UK seller (1) This section applies if— (a) a person (“A”) sells or lets for hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”), (b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is outside the United Kingdom at that time, (c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A, (d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows, and (e) pursuant to the arrangement, C finally delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to premises in England and Wales. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person other than an individual is outside the United Kingdom at any time if the person does not carry on a business of selling articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time. (3) C commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to premises in England or Wales, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who— (a) is aged 18 or over, and (b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual. (4) Any person finally delivering the crossbow or part of a crossbow to premises in England or Wales on behalf of C commits an offence if, when they deliver it, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who— (a) is aged 18 or over, and (b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual. (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine. (6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met. (7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) to show that— (a) the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met, or (b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a crossbow or part of a crossbow.’”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause creates offences relating to delivery of crossbows to premises following a remote sale equivalent to the offences relating to knives in sections 38 to 42 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 71 Sale and delivery of crossbows: supplementary provision “(1) After section 1F of the Crossbows Act 1987 (inserted by section (Delivery of crossbows)) insert— ‘1G Interpretation of sections 1B to 1F (1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1B to 1F. (2) A person (“A”) is not in the presence of another person (“B”) at any time if— (a) where A is an individual, A or a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time; (b) where A is not an individual, a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time. (3) “Residential premises” means premises used solely for residential purposes. (4) The circumstances where premises are not residential premises include, in particular, where a person carries on a business from the premises. (5) A person charged with an offence is taken to have shown a matter if— (a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and (b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.’ (2) After section 6 of the Crossbows Act 1987 insert— ‘6A Regulations (1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument. (2) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (alone or with other provision) regulations under section 1D(6) or 1E(7) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (3) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (3) In section 66(1) of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc), after paragraph (ga) (inserted by section (Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales) insert— “(gb) any of sections 1 to 3 of the Crossbows Act 1987 (sale etc of crossbows) as they have effect in relation to England and Wales,”.’”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause makes provision about the interpretation of the new sections added to the Crossbows Act 1987 by NC69 and NC70 and extends the guidance-making power in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 to cover offences under the Crossbows Act 1987. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 72 “Relevant user-to-user services”, “relevant search services” and “service providers” “(1) For the purposes of this Chapter— (a) a ‘relevant search service’ is a search service other than an exempt service; (b) a ‘relevant user-to-user service’ is a user-to-user service other than an exempt service. (2) In subsection (1), ‘search service’ and ‘user-to-user service’ have the same meanings as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (the ‘2023 Act’) (see, in particular, section 3 of that Act). (3) The following are exempt services for the purposes of subsection (1)— (a) a service of a kind that is described in any of the following paragraphs of Schedule 1 to the 2023 Act (certain services exempt from regulation under that Act)— (i) paragraph 1 or 2 (email, SMS and MMS services); (ii) paragraph 3 (services offering one-to-one live aural communications); (iii) paragraph 4 (limited functionality services); (iv) paragraph 5 (services which enable combinations of user-generated content); (v) paragraph 7 or 8 (internal business services); (vi) paragraph 9 (services provided by public bodies); (vii) paragraph 10 (services provided by persons providing education or childcare), or (b) a service of a kind that is described in Schedule 2 to the 2023 Act (services that include regulated provider pornographic content). (4) This Chapter does not apply in relation to a part of a relevant search service, or a part of a relevant user-to-user service, if the 2023 Act does not apply to that part of the service by virtue of section 5(1) or (2) of that Act. (5) In this Chapter, ‘service provider’ means a provider of a relevant user-to-user service or a provider of a relevant search service.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause, which together with NC73, NC74, NC75, NC76, NC77, NC78, NC79, NC80, NC81, NC82, NC83, NC84, NC85, NC86 and NS1 are expected to form a new Chapter of Part 2 of the Bill, defines key terms used in the new Chapter. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 73 Coordinating officer “(1) The Secretary of State must designate a member of a relevant police force or a National Crime Agency officer as the coordinating officer for the purposes of this Chapter. (2) The coordinating officer may delegate any of the officer’s functions under this Chapter (to such extent as the officer may determine) to another member of a relevant police force or National Crime Agency officer.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause requires the Secretary of State to designate a “coordinating officer” to perform the functions conferred on that officer under the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory note for NC72. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 74 Notice requiring appointment of content manager “(1) The coordinating officer may give a service provider a notice (an ‘appointment notice’) requiring the provider— (a) either to— (i) appoint an individual who meets the conditions in subsection (2) as the provider’s content manager for the purposes of this Chapter, or (ii) if there is no such individual, confirm that is the case to the coordinating officer, and (b) to provide the coordinating officer with the required information. (2) The conditions are that the individual— (a) plays a significant role in— (i) the making of decisions about how a whole or substantial part of the service provider’s activities are to be managed or organised, or (ii) the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities, and (b) is habitually resident in the United Kingdom. (3) ‘Required information’ means— (a) the contact details of any content manager appointed; (b) an email address, or details of another means of contacting the service provider rapidly which is readily available, that may be used for the purpose of giving the provider a notice under this Chapter; (c) information identifying the relevant user-to-user services, or (as the case may be) the relevant search services, provided by the provider. (4) An appointment notice must— (a) specify the period before the end of which the service provider must comply with the notice, and (b) explain the potential consequences of the service provider failing to do so (see section (Failure to comply with content manager requirements: civil penalty)). (5) The period specified under subsection (4)(a) must be at least seven days beginning with the day on which the notice is given.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause confers a power on the coordinating officer to require a service provider to appoint a senior executive as their “content manager” for the purposes of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory note for NC72 or to confirm that there is no-one who meets the appointment conditions. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 75 Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances “(1) This section applies where— (a) the coordinating officer has given a service provider an appointment notice, (b) the provider has confirmed to the officer (in accordance with the appointment notice or under section (Replacement of content manager)(5)(b)), that there is no individual who meets the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2), and (c) at any time within the period of two years beginning with the day on which that confirmation was given, there is an individual who meets those conditions. (2) The service provider must, before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the first day on which there is an individual who meets those conditions— (a) appoint such an individual as the provider’s content manager for the purposes of this Chapter, and (b) provide the coordinating officer with the content manager’s contact details.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause requires a service provider that at any time could not appoint a senior executive as its content manager when required to do so (because there was no-one who met the appointment conditions) to make an appointment if, following a change in circumstances within 2 years, there is someone who meets the conditions. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 76 Replacement of content manager “(1) This section applies where a service provider has appointed an individual as the provider’s content manager (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances) or this section). (2) The service provider may replace the provider’s content manager by appointing another individual who meets the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2) as the provider’s new content manager for the purposes of this Chapter. (3) The service provider must, before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which an appointment is made under subsection (2), provide the coordinating officer with the new content manager’s contact details. (4) If the individual appointed as a service provider’s content manager ceases to meet any of the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2), the appointment ceases to have effect. (5) The service provider must, before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which an appointment ceases to have effect under subsection (4)— (a) either— (i) appoint another individual who meets the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2) as the provider’s content manager for the purposes of this Chapter, and (ii) provide the coordinating officer with the new content manager’s contact details, or (b) if there is no longer such an individual, confirm that is the case to the coordinating officer.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause makes provision for the appointment by a service provider of a replacement content manager, including in a case where the original content manager ceases to meet the appointment conditions (and so that appointment ceases to have effect). Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 77 Duty to notify changes in required information “(1) This section applies where a service provider has, in accordance with an appointment notice or under section ( Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances )(2)(b) or ( Replacement of content manager )(5)(a)(ii)provided the coordinating officer with required information. (2) The service provider must give notice to the coordinating officer of any change in the required information. (3) The notice must specify the date on which the change occurred. (4) The notice must be given before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the change occurred.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause requires a service provider that has given the coordinating officer required information (as defined in NC74) to inform the officer of any changes in that information. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 78 Failure to comply with content manager requirements: civil penalty “(1) This section applies if the coordinating officer has given a service provider an appointment notice and— (a) the period specified in the notice as mentioned in ( Notice requiring appointment of content manager )(4)(a) has expired without the provider having complied with the notice, (b) the provider has failed to comply with a requirement under section ( Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances ), ( Replacement of content manager ) or ( Duty to notify changes in required information ), (c) the provider, in purported compliance with a requirement to provide, or give notice of a change in, required information (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section ( Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances )(2)(b), ( Replacement of content manager ) or ( Duty to notify changes in required information )(2)) makes a statement that is false in a material particular, or (d) the provider makes a statement that is false in giving the confirmation mentioned in section ( Notice requiring appointment of content manager )(1)(a)(ii) or ( Replacement of content manager )(5)(b). (2) The coordinating officer may give the service provider a notice (a ‘penalty notice’) requiring the provider to pay a penalty of an amount not exceeding £60,000. (3) In order to take account of changes in the value of money the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (2). (4) Schedule ( Civil penalties for service providers and content managers ) makes further provision in connection with penalty notices given under this Chapter.” — (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause confers a power on the coordinating officer to impose a monetary penalty of up to £60,000 on a service provider that fails to comply with various requirements imposed by an appointment notice or under NC75, NC76 and NC77. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 79 Unlawful weapons content “(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in England and Wales if it is content that constitutes— (a) an offence under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc a dangerous weapon), (b) an offence under section 1 or 2 of the Knives Act 1997 (marketing of knives as suitable for combat etc and related publications), or (c) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of England and Wales (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc an offensive weapon). (2) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in Scotland if it is content that constitutes— (a) an offence within subsection (1)(a) or (b), or (b) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of Scotland. (3) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in Northern Ireland if it is content that constitutes— (a) an offence under Article 53 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160) (N.I. 24) (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc certain knives), (b) an offence within subsection (1)(b), or (c) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of Northern Ireland.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause defines “unlawful weapons content” for the purposes of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory note for NC72. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 80 Content removal notices “(1) This section applies where an authorised officer is satisfied that content— (a) present on a relevant user-to-user service, or (b) which may be encountered in or via search results of a relevant search service; is unlawful weapons content in a relevant part of the United Kingdom. (2) The authorised officer may give a content removal notice to— (a) the provider of the relevant user-to-user service, or (b) the provider of the relevant search service. (3) If the authorised officer gives a content removal notice to a service provider in a case where the coordinating officer has the contact details of the provider’s content manager, the authorised officer may also give the notice to that manager. (4) A content removal notice is a notice requiring the service provider and (if applicable) the provider’s content manager (each a ‘recipient’) to secure that— (a) the content to which it relates is removed (see section ( Interpretation of Chapter )(2)), and (b) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer. (5) A content removal notice must— (a) identify the content to which it relates; (b) explain the authorised officer’s reasons for considering that the content is unlawful weapons content in the relevant part (or parts) of the United Kingdom; (c) explain that the notice must be complied with before the end of the period of 48 hours beginning with the time the notice is given; (d) explain that each recipient has the right to request a review of the decision to give the notice and how a request is to be made (see section ( Content removal notices: review )); (e) set out the potential consequences of failure to comply with the notice; (f) contain the authorised officer’s contact details; (g) be in such form, and contain such further information, as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe. (6) The authorised officer may withdraw a content removal notice from a recipient by notifying the recipient to that effect (but withdrawal of a notice does not prevent a further content removal notice from being given under this section, whether or not in relation to the same content as the withdrawn notice). (7) In this section— ‘authorised officer’ means— (a) a member of a relevant police force who is authorised for the purposes of this section by the chief officer of the force, or (b) a National Crime Agency officer who is authorised for the purposes of this section by the Director General of the National Crime Agency; ‘relevant part of the United Kingdom’ means— (a) where the authorised officer is a member of a relevant police force in England and Wales, England and Wales; (b) where the authorised officer is a member of the Police Service of Scotland, Scotland; (c) where the authorised officer is a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland; (d) where the authorised officer is a member of the Ministry of Defence Police or a National Crime Agency officer, any part of the United Kingdom.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause confers power on the police or an officer of the National Crime Agency to give a service provider and (if there is one) the provider’s content manager a notice requiring them to remove unlawful weapons content from the services they provide. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 81 Content removal notices: review “(1) A person who is given a content removal notice (a ‘recipient’) may, before the end of the initial 48-hour period, request a review of the decision to give the notice. (2) A request under subsection (1) is to be made by the recipient giving— (a) a notice (a ‘review notice’) to the authorised officer, and (b) a copy of the review notice to the other recipient (if applicable). (3) The grounds on which a recipient may request a review include, in particular, that— (a) content to which the notice relates is not unlawful weapons content; (b) content to which the notice relates is insufficiently identified for the recipient to be able to take the action required by the notice; (c) the provider that received the notice is not, in fact, the provider of the relevant user-to-user service or relevant search service to which the notice relates; (d) the individual who received the notice as the service provider’s content manager is not, in fact, that provider’s content manager; (e) the notice was otherwise not given in accordance with this Chapter. (4) On receipt of a review notice, a review of the decision to give the content removal notice must be carried out— (a) if the authorised officer is a member of a relevant police force, by another member of that force who is of a higher rank; (b) if the authorised officer is a National Crime Agency officer, by another officer who holds a more senior position in the Agency. The individual carrying out the review is referred to in this section as ‘the reviewing officer’. (6) On completing the review or (in a case where two review notices are given) both reviews the reviewing officer must, in respect of each recipient, either— (a) confirm in full the decision to give the content removal notice, (b) confirm the decision to give the notice, but in relation to only some of the content to which it relates, or (c) withdraw the notice. (7) The reviewing officer must give each recipient a notice (a ‘decision notice’)— (a) setting out the outcome of the review or reviews, and (b) giving reasons.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause makes provision for the police or the NCA to review the decision to give a service provider or their content manager a content removal notice under NC80 where the recipient of the notice requests a review. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 82 Decision notices requiring removal of unlawful weapons content “(1) This section applies where the reviewing officer— (a) has carried out a review or reviews under section ( Content removal notices: review ), and (b) confirms the decision to give the content removal notice to the service provider, the provider’s content manager or both of them (in each case whether as mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or (b) of that section). (2) If the reviewing officer confirms in full the decision to give the content removal notice, the decision notice must require its recipient to secure that— (a) the content to which the content removal notice relates is removed, and (b) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer. (3) If the officer confirms the decision to give the content removal notice but in relation to only some of the content to which it relates, the decision notice must— (a) identify the content to which the confirmation relates (the ‘confirmed content’), and (b) require its recipient to secure that— (i) the confirmed content is removed, and (ii) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer. (4) A decision notice within subsection (2) or (3) must specify the period before the end of which the notice must be complied with, and that period must be whichever of the following is the longest— (a) the period of 24 hours beginning with the time the decision notice is given; (b) the period— (i) beginning with the time the review notice or, if there was more than one, the first review notice, was given under section ( Content removal notices: review ), and (ii) ending with the end of the initial 48-hour period. (5) In this section, ‘reviewing officer’ has the same meaning as in section ( Content removal notices: review ).”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause provides for the police or NCA, following a review under NC81 which confirms (in full or in part) the decision to give a content removal notice, to give the service provider or content manager a decision notice requiring the removal of the unlawful weapons content concerned. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 83 Failure to comply with content removal notice or decision notice: civil penalties “(1) Subsection (2) applies where— (a) a content removal notice has been given to a service provider, or to both a service provider and the provider’s content manager, in accordance with section ( Content removal notices ), and (b) the initial 48-hour period has expired without the notice having been complied with or a review notice having been given. (2) A senior authorised officer of the issuing force may give a penalty notice— (a) to the service provider, or (b) if the provider’s content manager also received the content removal notice, to the content manager or to both of them. (3) Subsection (4) applies where, following a review or reviews under section ( Content removal notices: review )— (a) a decision notice has been given to the service provider or to both the provider and the provider’s content manager in accordance with section ( Decision notices requiring removal of unlawful weapons content )(2) or (3) confirming the decision to give the content removal notice, and (b) the period specified in the decision notice under subsection (4) of that section has expired without that notice having been complied with. (4) A senior authorised officer of the issuing force may give a penalty notice— (a) to the service provider, or (b) if the provider’s content manager also received the decision notice, to the content manager or to both of them. (5) In this section a ‘penalty notice’ means a notice requiring its recipient to pay a penalty— (a) where the recipient is a service provider, of an amount not exceeding £60,000; (b) where the recipient is a service provider’s content manager, of an amount not exceeding £10,000. (6) In order to take account of changes in the value of money the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for a sum for the time being specified in subsection (5). (7) See Schedule ( Civil penalties for service providers and content managers ) for further provision in connection with penalty notices given under this section.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause confers a power on the police or NCA to impose a monetary penalty of up to £60,000 on a service provider or up to £10,000 on a content manager if they have failed to comply with a content removal notice or a decision notice. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 84 Guidance “(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the persons mentioned in subsection (2) about the exercise of their functions under this Chapter. (2) The persons are— (a) the chief officer, and any other member, of a relevant police force; (b) the Director General of the National Crime Agency and any other officer of the Agency. (3) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section. (4) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance or revisions issued under this section. (5) A person mentioned in subsection (2) must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when exercising a function under this Chapter.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause confers power on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police and the National Crime Agency about the exercise of their functions under the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 85 Notices “(1) This section applies in relation to any notice that must or may be given to a person under this Chapter. (2) A notice may be given to a person by— (a) delivering it by hand to the person, (b) leaving it at the person’s proper address, (c) sending it by post to the person at that address, or (d) sending it by email to the person’s email address. (3) A notice to a body corporate may be given to any officer of that body. (4) A notice to a partnership may be given to any partner or to a person who has the control or management of the partnership business. (5) A notice sent by first class post to an address in the United Kingdom, is treated as given at noon on the second working day after the day of posting, unless the contrary is proved. (6) A notice sent by email is treated as given at the time it is sent unless the contrary is proved. (7) In this section— ‘director’ includes any person occupying the position of a director, by whatever name called; ‘email address’, in relation to a person, means— (a) an email address provided by that person for the purposes of this Chapter, or (b) any email address published for the time being by that person as an address for contacting that person; ‘officer’, in relation to an entity, includes a director, a manager, a partner, the secretary or, where the affairs of the entity are managed by its members, a member; ‘proper address’ means— (a) in the case of an entity, the address of the entity’s registered office or principal office; (b) in any other case, the person’s last known address; ‘working day’ means any day other than— (a) a Saturday or Sunday, or (b) a day that is a bank holiday in any part of the United Kingdom under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971. (8) In the case of an entity registered or carrying on business outside the United Kingdom, or with offices outside the United Kingdom, the reference in subsection (7), in the definition of ‘proper address’, to the entity’s principal office includes— (a) its principal office in the United Kingdom, or (b) if the entity has no office in the United Kingdom, any place in the United Kingdom at which the person giving the notice believes, on reasonable grounds, that the notice will come to the attention of any director or other officer of that entity.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause makes provision about the ways in which a notice can be given, and the time at which a notice is to be treated as given, under the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 86 Interpretation of Chapter “(1) In this Chapter— ‘appointment notice’ has the meaning given by section ( Notice requiring appointment of content manager )(1); ‘authorised officer’ in relation to a content removal notice, means the member of a relevant police force, or officer of the National Crime Agency, who gave the notice; ‘chief officer’— (a) in relation to a police force in England and Wales, means the chief officer of police of the force; (b) in relation to any other relevant police force, means the chief constable of that force; ‘contact details’, in relation to an individual, means the individual’s— (a) full name; (b) telephone number; (c) email address; (d) residential address, or other service address, in the United Kingdom; ‘content’ has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 236(1) of that Act); ‘content manager’, in relation to a service provider, means the individual for the time being appointed as the content manager of the provider (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section ( Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances ) or ( Replacement of content manager )); ‘content removal notice’ has the meaning given by section ( Content removal notices )(4); ‘coordinating officer’ means the individual designated as such under section ( Coordinating officer )(1); ‘decision notice’ means a notice given under section ( Content removal notices: review )(7); ‘encounter’, in relation to content, has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 236(1) of that Act); ‘entity’ has the same meaning as in that Act (see section 236(1) of that Act); ‘initial 48-hour period’, in relation to a content removal notice, means the 48-hour period specified in the notice as mentioned in section ( Content removal notices )(5)(c); ‘issuing force’— (a) in relation to a content removal notice given by a member of a relevant police force, means that force; (b) in relation to a content removal notice given by a National Crime Agency officer, means the National Crime Agency; ‘relevant police force’— (a) in relation to England and Wales, means— (i) a police force in England and Wales, or (ii) the Ministry of Defence Police; (b) in relation to Scotland, means— (i) the Police Service of Scotland, or (ii) the Ministry of Defence Police; (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, means— (i) the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or (ii) the Ministry of Defence Police; ‘relevant search service’ and ‘relevant user-to-user service’ have the meanings given by section ( ‘ Relevant user-to-user services ’ , ‘ relevant search services ’ and ‘ service providers ’ ); ‘required information’ has the meaning given by section ( Notice requiring appointment of content manager )(3); ‘review notice’ has the meaning given by section ( Content removal notices: review )(2)(a); ‘search content’ and ‘search results’ have the meanings given by section 57 of the Online Safety Act 2023; ‘senior authorised officer’, in relation to a relevant police force, means— (a) the chief officer of the relevant police force, or (b) a member of the relevant police force of at least the rank of inspector authorised for the purposes of this Chapter by the chief officer; ‘senior authorised officer’, in relation to the National Crime Agency, means— (a) the Director General of the National Crime Agency, or (b) an officer of the Agency who— (i) holds a position in the Agency the seniority of which is at least equivalent to that of the rank of inspector in a relevant police force, and (ii) is authorised for the purposes of this Chapter by the Director General; ‘service address’ has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see section 1141 of the Companies Act 2006); ‘service provider’ has the meaning given by section ( ‘ Relevant user-to-user services ’ , ‘ relevant search services ’ and ‘ service providers ’ ). (2) For the purposes of this Chapter, a reference to ‘removing’ content— (a) in relation to content present on a relevant user-to-user service, is a reference to any action that results in the content being removed from the service, or being permanently hidden, so users of the service in any part of the United Kingdom in which the content is unlawful weapons content cannot encounter it; (b) in relation to content which may be encountered in or via search results of a relevant search service, is a reference to taking measures designed to secure, so far as possible, that the content is no longer included in the search content of the service that is available in any part of the United Kingdom in which the content is unlawful weapons content; and related expressions are to be read accordingly. (3) The following provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023 apply for the purposes of this Chapter as they apply for the purposes of that Act— (a) section 226 (determining who is the provider of a particular user-to-user service or search service); (b) section 236(5) and (6) (references to content being present).”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause contains definitions of terms used in the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 87 Dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling “(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6). (2) Before section 28 (dangerous cycling) insert— ‘27A Causing death by dangerous cycling A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence. 27B Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling (1) A person who causes serious injury to another person by riding a cycle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence. (2) In this section “serious injury” means— (a) in England and Wales, physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and (b) in Scotland, severe physical injury.’ (3) In section 28— (a) in subsection (1) for ‘on a road dangerously’ substitute ‘dangerously on a road or other public place’; (b) omit subsections (2) and (3). (4) After section 28 insert— ‘28A Meaning of “dangerous cycling” (1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 27A, 27B and 28. (2) A person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if) the condition in subsection (3) or (4) is met. (3) The condition in this subsection is met if— (a) the way that the person rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous. (4) The condition in this subsection is met if it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding the cycle in its current state would be dangerous. (5) In determining the state of a cycle for the purposes of subsection (4), regard may be had (among other things) to— (a) whether the cycle is equipped and maintained in accordance with regulations under section 81 (regulation of brakes, bells etc, on pedal cycles); (b) anything attached to or carried on the cycle and the manner in which it is attached or carried. (6) In determining what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard is to be had both to— (a) the circumstances of which the person could be expected to be aware (taking account of, if relevant to the case, the age of the accused), and (b) the circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused. (7) References in this section to something being “dangerous” are references to it resulting in danger of— (a) injury to any person, or (b) serious damage to property. 28B Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence. 28C Causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling (1) A person who causes serious injury to another person by riding a cycle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence. (2) In this section ‘serious injury’ means— (a) in England and Wales, physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and (b) in Scotland, severe physical injury.’ (5) In section 29 (careless, and inconsiderate, cycling)— (a) after ‘a road’ insert ‘or other public place’; (b) after ‘the road’ insert ‘or place’. (6) After section 29 insert— ‘29A Meaning of careless, or inconsiderate, cycling (1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 28B, 28C and 29. (2) A person is to be regarded as cycling without due care and attention if (and only if) the way the person cycles falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist. (3) In determining what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard is to be had both to— (a) the circumstances of which the person could be expected to be aware (taking account of, if relevant to the case, the age of the accused), and (b) the circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused. (4) A person (A) is to be regarded as cycling without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by A’s cycling.’ (7) The table in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences) is amended as follows. (8) After the entry relating to ‘RTA section 27’ insert in columns 1 to 4— ‘RTA section 27A Causing death by dangerous cycling. On indictment. Imprisonment for life. RTA section 27B Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling. (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. (a) On conviction in England and Wales: the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 5 years or a fine or both.’ (9) After the entry relating to ‘RTA section 28’ insert in columns 1 to 4— ‘RTA section 28B Causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. (a) On conviction in England and Wales: the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 5 years or a fine or both. RTA section 28C Causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. (a) On conviction in England and Wales: the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 2 years or a fine or both.’” —(Alex Davies-Jones.) This new clause creates new offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling with penalties corresponding to the penalties applicable to the existing offences for causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving. It also extends the existing offences of dangerous, and careless or inconsiderate, cycling so as to apply to cycling that takes place on public places that are not roads. Brought up, and read the First time.
8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, and it is of concern to me as the Minister. We are introducing this new procedure because we think that the current legislation around buying and delivering is not strong enough. I take his point and I will reflect on it. It may be—I do need to think about it—that it would be onerous to have certified copies. We want to get this right, however, and ensure that accurate legal documents are used, so I will come back to that point. I will return to the new clauses, so that the Committee is clear about what they will do. New clause 70 also provides for a new offence on the part of the courier or the person delivering on their behalf, equivalent to the new offence that I have described for the delivery of a knife. The courier or person delivering on behalf of the courier must provide the crossbow or parts of crossbows only into the hands of the actual buyer, and only at the address that the buyer provided at the outset. If the courier or person delivering on behalf of the courier fails to do that, they will commit a summary offence attracting a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine. It will be a defence, however, for the courier or person delivering on behalf of the courier to show that they have checked an official identity document, and that the ID has the name of the person indicated by the seller, that it shows that the holder is over 18, and that as far as they can tell, the picture in the identity document is of the person at the doorstep. Where businesses hire out or let crossbows for corporate events or entertainment—something that I did not know happened, but apparently does—and do so online, the age-verification measures will apply to the hire and delivery of the crossbows where the hirer is an individual. New clause 71 also provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance on the new offence under the Crossbows Act 1987. Turning to the reportable sale of knives, new clause 68 introduces a requirement to report all sales of knives where they are made remotely, including online sales. That will help the police to tackle what is called the grey market—the resale of knives on social media. The police tell us that grey market sellers act irresponsibly. For example, they promote knives as weapons, which is unlawful, and they do not conduct age-verification checks. The new clause will give the police information that will enable them to act. Sellers who do not comply will be liable to a fine. Sales are reportable where six knives or more, or two or more qualifying sets of knives such as a block of knives, or one or more qualifying set together with five or more knives, are sold remotely in one sale and are to be delivered to the same residential address in England or Wales. The reporting requirement is also triggered when multiple sales meeting those limits are made to the same person or the same residential address in England or Wales within a 30-day period.
8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
It is nice to see you back in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. This group of new clauses makes extensive and timely changes to the law around the sale and marketing of offensive weapons, particularly knives and crossbows. These measures form part of the steps that we are taking to tackle knife crime. They will implement recommendations from the police’s independent end-to-end review of online knife sales, undertaken by Commander Stephen Clayman at the request of the Home Secretary, and will deliver on our manifesto commitment to hold to account senior managers who flout the rules on online sales. New clauses 66 and 67 introduce new, stricter age verification at the point of sale and on delivery for knives bought online. New clauses 69 and 70 make the same changes in respect of crossbows. Commander Clayman’s review highlighted that existing age-verification methods for online sales are insufficient. Buyers can provide false birth dates and parcels can be left with neighbours so that there is no age check of the buyer. Existing legislation, as contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, already requires age checks for the sale and delivery of knives. We are introducing two key changes to the existing requirements. First, the checks at the point of sale will have to include photographic identity documents, plus a current photograph to demonstrate that the identity documents belong to the buyer. Secondly, on delivery, couriers will be required to check photographic identification provided by the person receiving the package. There will also be a new offence of handing the knife to someone other than the buyer. That will mean that knives cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours with no checks of the intended recipient.
8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
New clauses 88 to 90 further update our public order legislation to reflect operational experience. It is important that the legislation keeps pace with the operational realities faced by police on the ground. In the wake of the events in Israel and Gaza on 7 October 2023, we have seen a wave of large-scale protests across the United Kingdom. Although the right to protest is of course a cornerstone of our democracy and the majority of demonstrations have been peaceful, we cannot ignore the very real impact that some of the gatherings have had on religious communities. We have heard troubling reports of people of all faiths feeling too intimidated to attend places of worship, and of services being cancelled due to the proximity and nature of the protests. New clause 88 therefore seeks to provide religious communities with better protection from intimidation caused by protests within the vicinity of their place of worship. The police have powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to manage protests where there is serious disruption to the life of the community or intentional intimidation. However, the powers often do not capture the types of harm currently being experienced by religious communities, especially where the intimidation is not deliberate, but is none the less very real for those affected. The intention of the new clause is to strengthen the police’s powers to manage intimidatory public processions, public assemblies or one-person protests near places of worship, specifically by allowing police to impose conditions where they reasonably believe that the procession, assembly or protest may result in the intimidation of and deter those seeking to access places of worship. New clause 88 achieves that by creating a new threshold in sections 12, 14 and 14ZA of the 1986 Act, under which the police can impose conditions on public processions, public assemblies and one-person protests. To be clear, it does not ban protests outright, but it enables the police to use this threshold to consider the appropriate time, location or routing that a protest should have in order to avoid intimidating those wishing to practise their faith at their place of worship. The new clause will allow the police to assess whether a protest may create an intimidating atmosphere that could deter people from accessing places of worship to carry out religious activities or from conducting religious activities there, regardless of whether the organisers of the protest themselves intended for the protest to have that effect. I turn to new clause 89. In managing recent protests, the police have relied on their powers under sections 12 and 14 of the 1986 Act to impose those conditions, for example where there is a risk of serious public disorder or serious disruption to the life of the community. However, under the current law, only the most senior officers physically at the scene can impose these conditions on live protests or where people are assembling with a view to take part. That can cause delays, particularly when strategic or tactical commanders, known as the gold and silver commanders, who are often based in off-site control rooms, have better access to intelligence but are unable to impose conditions directly. That can also lead to inconsistencies in how similar protests are managed across different locations, especially when multiple events occur at once. Policing stakeholders have made it clear that allowing gold and silver commanders to impose conditions remotely, where the statutory thresholds are met, would improve the timeliness, consistency and effectiveness of public order policing. Those commanders typically have the best oversight of unfolding events and are well placed to make informed decisions. New clause 89 therefore amends the 1986 Act to enable gold and silver commanders to exercise powers to impose conditions under sections 12(1) and 14(1) in relation to public processions and assemblies. Finally, new clause 90 addresses two operational issues raised by the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that public order powers can be used effectively by the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police. First, it amends the definitions in the Public Order Act 1986 to allow the BTP to impose conditions on public assemblies taking place at railway stations. Currently, the law restricts the use of these powers to open-air locations, which limits the BTP’s ability to manage protests in enclosed but high-risk public spaces such as major stations. This change will ensure that the BTP can act appropriately within its jurisdiction across England, Wales and Scotland. Secondly, the new clause corrects a legislative error made in 2004 that unintentionally prevented the BTP from using section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the existing power to require individuals to remove face coverings. This amendment restores that power. It also empowers the MDP to issue authorisations under section 60AA and section 60 of the 1994 Act to enable MDP officers to exercise powers under these provisions within its jurisdiction, in the same way as territorial police forces. These are technical but important amendments. They do not expand thresholds or the scope of the powers themselves, but simply ensure that the BTP and MDP can apply them, where appropriate, to keep people safe, particularly in transport hubs and around defence infrastructure. The proposals reflect direct feedback from operational policing and will bring clarity and consistency to the use of public order legislation. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the shadow Minister for the general tone of his response on this group of Government new clauses, which come directly from the review that Commander Clayman set out, as well the manifesto commitment we made, particularly around tech executives and holding them to account. There has been a great deal of consultation, particularly around the tech executives, how it would work and engagement with tech companies. I take the shadow Minister’s point about smaller platforms, but there has been that engagement. On the issue around training and enforcement in terms of the new clauses relating to sale and delivery, it is clear that all courier and delivery companies will have to ensure that their staff are trained on these new legal requirements. To be clear, if the person who is delivering the package has taken all steps to make sure that they have checked the information that is being provided and the identification document, and they are acting reasonably, that is a defence, but there will be a need for training and for people to know what their legal obligations are, particularly when they are delivering, because we know that has been a particular issue. The engagement, particularly with tech executives, that I talked about has also happened with courier firms and delivery businesses, and will continue. I want to go back to the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised about identity checks, just so everybody is clear.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →